I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Headquarters U.S. Air Force

AFCEE’s ERP-O: A Journey

from System Optimization

to Program Optimization

Dr. Javier SantillanAir Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

0

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE JUN 2010 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE AFCEE’s ERP-O: A Journey from System Optimization to Program Optimization

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment,2261 HughesAve,Lackland AFB,TX,78236-9853

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Presented at the NDIA Environment, Energy Security & Sustainability (E2S2) Symposium & Exhibitionheld 14-17 June 2010 in Denver, CO.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

30

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Outline

Introduction

Evolution

Partnerships

Summary

1

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Optimization Evolution

Evolution (1997 – 2007)

Starting point Monitoring Optimization (LTM)

Breakthrough RSO/RPO (RA-O)

Conceptual Site Models RSC

Looking to the end Exit Strategy

Big Picture PBM

What more can go wrong RPRM

Net no harm GSR

Even Bigger Picture ERP-O

2

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 3

Foundation for ERP-O

PBM - 2004

Remedial Process Optimization - 1999

Long-Term Monitoring Optimization - 1997

Streamlined Investigation - 2003

Exit Strategy - 2003

RPRM - 2008

GSR

2009

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 4

What we are doing now

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 5

Environmental Restoration Program Optimization (ERP-O) is a

comprehensive and systematic review of an installation’s past,

current and planned cleanup activities whose goal is to ensure

protection of human health and the environment over the entire

restoration life-cycle at minimal risk and optimal costs

Definition:Definition:

ERP-O provides all the needed tools to manage risk and complies with AFSO21

ERP-O Definition

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 6

ERP-O Flow Chart

Year of the Air Force Family

:q; ~I ~~ ••• •

Investigation Process Optimization Remedial Process Optimization

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 7

Study Program Effectiveness

Time and Cost to Achieve Site RIP Milestone

Timely Feedback to Decision Makers

An Iterative/Systematic Planning Approach for

Evaluating Remedial Study Programs

with the Goal of Improving Overall:

Definition:Definition:

A component of the overall AFCEE ERP-O

Investigation Process

Optimization (IPO)

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 8

Control Effectiveness

Site Cleanup Time and Costs

Timely Feedback to Decision Makers

An Iterative/Systematic Planning Approach for

Evaluating Existing/Proposed Remediation

Processes with the Goal of Improving Overall:

Definition:Definition:

A component of the overall AFCEE ERP-O

Remedial Process

Optimization (RPO)

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 9

Control Effectiveness

Site Cleanup Time and Costs

Timely Feedback to Decision Makers

An Iterative/Systematic Planning Approach for

Evaluating Existing/Proposed Remediation

Processes with the Goal of Improving Overall:

Definition:Definition:

A component of the overall AFCEE ERP-O

Remedial Process

Optimization (RPO)

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 10

Conceptual Site Models and Exit Strategies

Decision Documents

Contractual Strategies

Decision Logic

Background Studies

A Systematic Analytical Approach for resolution of

regulatory, technical, contractual, programmatic

issues

Definition:Definition:

A component of the overall AFCEE ERP-O

Technical Assistance

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Where we have been

ERP-O Visits Completed

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 12

Where are we in

execution of ERP-O?

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Where we are now

ERP-Os Completed at:

45 Air Force Bases

Primary Bases identified with sites at risk for RIP 2012

90% of Total CTC

4 Joint Bases

ERP-O impact has been realized at many

bases

Sites closed

Eliminated risk

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Common Deficiencies

At the Installation Level

Current, concise and representative CSMs

not available

Exit Strategies not defined nor documented

Performance Metrics not adequately

selected, defined or documented

Decision Logic not well defined or

documented

14

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Where we are now

Working to achieve ERP-O ROI

Implementation Challenges

It takes time (12 to 18 months)

It takes resolve (consistent committed effort by all stakeholders)

It takes teamwork (coordinated efforts with PMO-PM and RPMs)

It’s hard (technically, programmatically, contractually,

regulatory)

Actions needed by ERP-O

Base review, concurrence, and follow-through for

implementation for Phase II and Phase III taskings

Getting PMO PM involved to execute the action(s)

Regulatory interface

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Did it Work as Planed

ERP-O recommendations were not being implemented

years after the visit

Needed a process to transfer responsibility of

execution to the base

A Management review was incorporated into ERP-O

Recommendations are reviewed by base and

management

Approval from regulatory agency (if needed) pursued by

team with base present

Request for funding documents are prepared for

approved recommendations

Now it is working

16

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 17

Original PBM Elements

Performance Based

Contracting

Established ARAR

Analysis StrategyRemediation

Decision Logic

Process

Optimization

Exit Strategy

Defined Problem

Representative

CSM

Expert TeamCurrent & Future

Land Use

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 18

As of: 23 Sept

05 18

REMEDIAL PROCESS

OPTIMIZATION

Peer Review

Triad

Rapid Site

Characterization

VALIDATION &

PERFORMANCE

BASED

CONTRACTINGRIP/SC

EXIT STRATEGY

Current ERP-O Elements

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 19

ERP-O PhasesYear of the Air Force

Family ~

1 Frogam fJI!!,-i nu

1 1 Floio•oti..IJ.sc ~rqOJ~ Ill

:!I annual rTiilCU'"Ig

2.~ ...... (Ptllle I)

~~ ••• •

1 ::0 Ur.A~Rn._. n Y>a ldal 00 ll i'OCI!Z

2 2 P~·\ti:sll

High-Level Overview

5 ~~tiRltii"UI 00 Dl

R«onli!WldllliOfl!l ;P '"!OKe Ill)

II ::!H:1m fQoX."I'o"i....av.t"o f.S.

l1lf pt oze II 6:U:J"lS 1StotoRHPJ 4 ?-")

43 ....... phlle II..._

51 ~--rvlld t..,.lleH and Co!W'lKIOfs.

li 2 CDDrdllbl1c: 'lllh 11-Pf./0 11-.d TD

::.11nnual y

7.31;;dlllor ~r'lllll'oA'lir.W.

trd .-1c e UCH to ~.elir.AIU'

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 20

Year of the Air Force Family ~~ ••• •

Visit

3.3~cn IIPO-

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

ERP-O Tools

EDITT

R2TM

UAT

PTT

SRT

21

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 22

System

Inventory

PTT

Site

Inventory

Compliance Restoration

PhasePhase

R2TM

Support

Documents

LUC/IC

Inventory

Decision

Document

Inventory

Emerging

Issues

AF-wide

since 2006(Formerly

RIPS)

Summer

2008 February 2009

ERP-O

Tracker

Peer

Review

Triad

Tech-

VisitsFive Year

Review

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 4

March 2009

LUC/IC

E-mail

Notification

May 2009

Environmental Decision

Information Tracking Tool (EDITT)

TBD

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Pump and Treat, 95 / 25%

Enhanced Bioremediation,

74 / 19%Soil Vapor Extraction, 40 / 10%

Monitored Natural

Attenuation, 98 / 26%

Other, 54 / 14%

LNAPL Recovery, 9 /2%

Wall/Barrier, 11 / 3%

23

381 Remedial Systems in Operation*

AF Remediation System

Inventory by Technology

Energy Intensive

(38%)Low Energy/Passive

(48%)

Other*Based on FY08 EDITT System

Inventory as of 15 March 2010

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Pump and Treat, $23.9M / 52%

Enhanced Bioremediation $7.9M / 17%

Soil Vapor Extraction,

$5.1M / 11%

Monitored Natural Attenuation, $4.1M / 9%

Other, $2.8M / 6%

LNAPL Recovery, $1.5M / 3%

Wall/Barrier, $852K / 3%

24

Energy Intensive

(66% annual costs)Low Energy / Passive

(28% annual costs)

Other

AF Remediation System

Annual Costs by Technology

*Based on FY08 EDITT System

Inventory as of 15 March 2010

381 Remedial Systems in Operation* 38% 48%

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Other

Wall/Barrier

Monitored NaturalAttenuation (MNA)

EnhancedBioremediation

LNAPL Recovery

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

Pump and Treat

11 yrs

30 yrs

11 yrs

30 yrs

27 yrs

13 yrs

15 yrs

$8.39 M

$1.45M

$2.8 M

$1.51M

$2.60M

$2.04M

$1.01M

Average Life-Cycle Costs

by Technology

25

Energy IntensiveInventory – 38%

LCC - 73%

Low Energy / PassiveInventory – 48%

LCC – 24%

Other

*Based on FY08 EDITT System

Inventory as of 15 March 2010

Average Lifetime Operation

Average Lifetime O&M Costs

$1.25B

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Partnerships

ITRC

USACE

USGS

26

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Partnerships

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

Participates in ERP-O visits

Co-authored the Exit Strategy Factsheet

Provides support during regulatory interface

Provides free environmental training through the internet and

class room

Developed RPO, PBEM Technical Regulatory guidance

Developing Remediation Risk Management Tech-Reg

guidance

Developing Green and Sustainable Tech-Reg guidance

27

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Summary

How we got here is a long and tortuous journey

Over 10 years

It is essential that we promote wise remediation where

we truly manage and when possible eliminate risk

But we have to stop transferring the risk to others

Digging material to send to a landfill (transfer)

Removing ounces of pollutants from GW while dumping

tons in the atmosphere (transfer)

28

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Conclusion

IMPLEMENT SMART REMEDIATION

QUESTIONS??

29